Standing Committee C

[Mr. Frank Cook in the Chair]

Private Hire Vehicles (Carriage of Guide Dogs etc.) Bill

Frank Cook: Before we begin our formalities, I have an announcement about clause 5.
 When the Bill was introduced, the House authorities considered that expenditure would arise from the provisions of the Bill, thus requiring a money resolution. An expenses clause was consequently included in the measure as clause 5. 
 Since Second Reading there have been further discussions, including some with the Department that will have to implement the Bill. It is now considered that any expenditure that arises will be minimal, so a money resolution is no longer needed. Clause 5 is therefore redundant and should be left out of the Bill. As a consequence, when we reach clause 5, I shall put the question on clause stand part forthwith with the intention that it should be negatived.

Clause 1 - Carrying of guide dogs, hearing dogs and other assistance dogs

Neil Gerrard: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 4, leave out from beginning to end of line 19 and insert—
'37A Carrying of assistance dogs in private hire vehicles
 (1) It is an offence for the operator of a private hire vehicle to fail or refuse to accept a booking for a private hire vehicle— 
(a) if the booking is requested by or on behalf of a disabled person, or a person who wishes a disabled person to accompany him; and
(b) the reason for the failure or refusal is that the disabled person will be accompanied by his assistance dog.
 (2) It is an offence for the operator of a private hire vehicle to make an additional charge for carrying an assistance dog which is accompanying a disabled person.
 (3) It is an offence for the driver of a private hire vehicle to fail or refuse to carry out a booking accepted by the operator of the vehicle—
(a) if the booking was made by or on behalf of a disabled person, or a person who wishes a disabled person to accompany him; and
(b) the reason for the failure or refusal is that the disabled person is accompanied by his assistance dog.
 (4) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.'.

Frank Cook: With this it will be convenient to take the following: New Clause 1—Carrying of guide dogs, hearing dogs and other assistance dogs: Scotland—
 'In section 20 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (c. 45) (regulations relating to taxis and private hire cars and their drivers) the following subsection is inserted after subsection (2A)—
 ''(2AA) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations make such provision as appears to them to be necessary or expedient in relation to the carrying in private hire cars of disabled persons (within the meaning of section 1 (2) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (c. 50)) and such provision may in particular prescribe—
(a) requirements as to the carriage of guide dogs, hearing dogs and other categories of dogs;
(b) a date from which any such provision is to apply and the extent to which it is to apply; and
(c) the circumstances in which an exemption from such provision may be granted in respect of any private hire car or private hire car driver, and in this subsection ''guide dog'', ''hearing dog'' and ''other categories of dog'' have the same meaning as in subsection (2A) above.
 (2AB) Regulations under subsection (2AA) above shall be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the Scottish Parliament.''.'.

Neil Gerrard: I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Cook. I hope that we shall have a productive and not too onerous morning considering the amendments. I thank my colleagues who have given up their time to take part in the Committee. Although we shall not deal with contentious issues, it is important for the Committee to meet and to consider and agree to the amendments.
 Clause 1 is the most important part of the Bill and amendment No. 1 is the major issue that we shall consider this morning. The Bill will amend the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which places a duty on the drivers of licensed taxis to take guide dogs and other assistance dogs and not to make an extra charge for doing so. Nothing was done about private hire vehicles in the 1995 Act and the clause will extend the provisions of that Act to private hire vehicles. I shall not go through the principles behind it; the key point is that people who have assistance dogs rely on private hire vehicles more than most of us, for the obvious convenience of having door-to-door transport. 
 Private hire vehicles are already licensed in some parts of the country through local authorities, many of which include in their licensing requirements a statement that guide dogs and other assistance dogs should be carried, but the provision is patchy. The intention is therefore to ensure that it is consistent throughout the country. There is an anomaly in London, where there is no licensing for drivers at present, although I hope that there will be in the near future. 
 In the Bill as drafted, clause 1 essentially copied the provisions in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 for licensed taxis and applied them to private hire vehicles. To make that work properly, however, we must recognise that the hiring of private hire vehicles works differently from the hiring of taxis. A taxi is generally hired on the street, with the person hailing it and the taxi taking the fare. If the taxi refused to take a fare that involved a guide dog, the driver would be committing an offence. The contract is between the person taking the taxi and the driver; no other person is involved. 
 The situation is different for private hire vehicles, which cannot be legally hailed on the street, and which are generally booked through an operator. Someone 
 rings the operator, books the private hire vehicle and waits for the operator to send out a driver. Two people are involved in providing the service, and amendment No. 1 will cover both. Subsection (1) of the proposed new section will make it an offence for the operator to refuse to accept the booking if it is requested for a disabled person and the reason for the failure or refusal is the assistance dog accompanying the person. We cannot force operators to accept bookings, as there may be other reasons for refusing the booking. For example, they may not be prepared to send a driver that distance. However, an operator cannot refuse a booking because an assistance dog is involved. 
 Subsection (2) of the proposed new section is identical to one of the subsections in the original draft and will make it an offence to make an additional charge for carrying a dog, and subsection (3) will make it an offence for the driver to refuse to carry out the booking once the operator has accepted it. Both operator and driver are covered, which is necessary given the mechanisms in place for private hire vehicles. That is the reason for the major amendment to the original draft—to ensure that we cover both the operator and the driver involved in the contract, not just the driver. 
 I shall refer briefly to new clause 1. It will allow the Bill to be extended to Scotland. To do that, we had to consider our relationship with the Scottish Parliament and its powers. Since Second Reading, approaches have been made from the Scottish Parliament and Ministers to make it clear that they want to be able to extend the Bill's provisions to Scotland, and new clause 1 will allow Scottish Ministers to introduce a statutory instrument to do that. The Bill will then cover England, Wales and Scotland, although that still leaves a gap: Northern Ireland. Interest has been expressed from Northern Ireland, but it has not been possible to get the necessary technical agreement from the Northern Ireland Assembly to allow us to introduce an amendment. I hope that we shall be able to do that on Report. By then, the necessary resolution should have been passed by the Northern Ireland Assembly, and amendments covering Northern Ireland should have been tabled. 
 That is the reasoning behind the first group of amendments, which constitute the major change. Many of the amendments that we shall come to later are relatively technical and tidy up the legislation. The key change is to ensure that both operator and driver are covered—not just the driver, as would have been the case with the original draft of the Bill.

Tim Boswell: May I echo the sentiments that have been expressed about enjoying serving under your chairmanship, Mr. Cook? It is always a constructive experience, and I hope that it will be a reasonably brisk one, as usual.
 I should like to place on the record my gratitude to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), who introduced the Bill. It is good in principle and, like the amendment, has been presented in a characteristically exemplary and clear fashion. The hon. Gentleman supplied additional material and has obviously had a constructive working relationship 
 with the Department. That is the right way to proceed, because we all have to understand that, with private Members' legislation, the aspiration is one thing, the delivery another. Delivery is terribly important, although the wider principle is the greater one. 
 I have a general point to raise about disability issues. A number of hon. Members, particularly on the Government Benches, have been very much involved, as I have, in the all-party disability group. My experience in this place is that, on disability issues, it is quite difficult to put any significant distance between members of individual parties. Our only worry is that not all our colleagues from all parties take the same interest in the issue as we do—but enough of self-congratulation. This is a very sensible Bill, and we shall approach it in that spirit. 
 I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that, if I raise any queries, I do so not as some sort of pettifogging exercise, but in an attempt to get the legislation absolutely right, within a framework that we find perfectly acceptable. I have only two or three comments to make on what he has rightly said is the substantive clutch of amendments. 
 I think that my first point solves itself, but it would be useful to consider it for a moment. It concerns what might be termed ''mixed motives'' in turning down a booking. An example—not a particularly happy one, in view of recent discussions—is the primary purpose rule for immigration. An operator or driver might have more than one motive. To put it more seriously, if a case went to court, there could be a rather messy evidential argument about whether the main motive for turning down a booking was the presence of a guide dog. 
 To put it another way, if someone was maliciously inclined and happy to cock a snook at the legislation, they might try to find a pretext for turning down a booking. They might have done so because they did not like the dog, but they might say that they had gone over their hours, they were out of their normal range or whatever. One assumes that, if push ever came to shove and there were proceedings in court, the matter would be sorted out perfectly well and the extent of the bearing of the different motives would be explored. However, it is worth at least pausing to consider whether the expression used is correct. I say that not as a lawyer but as someone who is always anxious that we get legislation right. 
 My second concern relates to the respective duties of the operator and the driver, which the hon. Gentleman has properly set out. I consider that they mesh perfectly, because they are parallel duties. The operator is told that he cannot turn down a booking on the grounds of disability, and the driver is told the same. I do not think that it is necessary to have anything securing that in the driver's contract of employment or engagement with the operator, because certain compliances with the law are implicit in any such arrangement. A driver who signs a contract with the operator is required to comply with road traffic laws and not to exceed speed limits. I am unsure whether the difficulty needs to be tied up explicitly.
 I come now to a more substantive concern. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right to tie the provisions to the operator in the first instance because of the booking system, which represents the interface with the customer. It will be a nice legal matter, but the contract with the customer resides with the operator—not the driver—whose responsibility it is to provide a transport service from A to B. 
 It is not clear in amendment No. 1 whether anything about the disability has to be disclosed in the initial booking conversation. Two circumstances are possible. In the first, the disabled person might say that he requires an assistance dog to travel with him, leaving the operator in no doubt. If the operator then told the client to get stuffed, it would be a clear breach of the proposed law. Alternatively, it might simply be assumed with nothing expressly said about it, in which case the operator might find himself in difficulty. 
 The biggest difficulty applies to circumstances where the operator is a single-vehicle operation. For perfectly good reasons, the vehicle might be subject to an exemption certificate. It is unlikely to happen—most private hire firms are not like that—but it is not impossible. An owner-driver could take the message on the phone. If the operator has to take a booking and cannot turn it down on the grounds of a person's disablement or requirement of a dog's assistance, but has no vehicle available to discharge the service, will it cause a difficulty that amounts to an unreasonable burden? The driver might turn up at the person's home and say, ''Good Lord, I didn't know that you had a dog with you''; no other vehicle might be available. In those circumstances, would the operator be obliged to secure another vehicle, perhaps through hire, or would the obligation have been discharged by virtue of the operator's not discriminating against the person? 
 The legislation is all about discrimination and about motive. We want to stop private hire firms and their drivers using a person's need for an assistance dog to turn down a booking. That is not in doubt. I am worried, however, that we could create difficulties for an operator who, with the best of motives, genuinely cannot meet the requirements.

Hugo Swire: In support of my hon. Friend, I would argue that the onus should fall on the person booking the vehicle to declare the need for a dog's assistance. The driver turning up for the journey might have an allergy and be unable to stay in the same vehicle as the animal. In those circumstances, he could legitimately refuse to accept the fare.

Tim Boswell: My hon. Friend assists the Committee in making that point. No one is trying to overturn the substance of the legislation, which is to stop wilful discrimination against disabled people who need the assistance of a dog. That is not at issue. I hope, however, that the hon. Member for Walthamstow will reflect on the spirit of what my hon. Friend and I have said and try to ensure that an operator does not stumble into a position that had not been anticipated and for which no easy recourse is available. I am not asking for a categorical answer now, but I hope that he
 will reflect further and ensure that the duties are fair. There is an implied duty on the client to declare their need for assistance up front if they are reasonably to expect that it will be available when they need it.

Tom Clarke: I take it that this is the appropriate time to discuss new clause 1.

Frank Cook: Indeed.

Tom Clarke: Thank you, Mr. Cook. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow and the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) in welcoming you to the Chair. Given our visit to North Korea some time ago, I may refer to you as ''our great Chairman'' or ''our dear leader''.
 In common with my colleagues, I am delighted with the progress that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow has made with this excellent Bill, and with the time that he has taken to consult everyone affected by its implications. As one of its sponsors, I thought that Scotland would be included at some point. Following the discussions that my hon. Friend mentioned, I am delighted that it will be included as a result of the new clause. 
 My brief questions are technical, and if my hon. Friend the Minister does not have the answers today, perhaps he will be willing to write to members of the Committee. Can we assume that our colleagues in the Scottish Executive, who represent the Scottish Parliament, supported the measure, and were 100 per cent. in favour of including Scotland? I very much hope that they were. 
 Proposed subsection (2AB) states: 
 ''Regulations under subsection (2AA) above shall be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the Scottish Parliament.'' 
Have the Scottish Executive expressed any views yet? Does the reference to annulment mean annulment of the statutory instrument put before the Scottish Parliament, or the right later to repeal a statutory instrument that has already been approved? I hope that the Minister will be able to see the distinction. If not, perhaps the advice given to him will clarify it. It would be welcome if ''annulment'' means what I think it means: that a statutory instrument put before the Scottish Parliament will be approved and will therefore apply to Scotland. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow said during consideration of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) was also involved, this is an evolutionary measure that would develop, and is another indication of the improvements that we can make in partnership with the Scottish Parliament. 
 I hope that my technical questions were not too difficult; if they were, perhaps the letter will serve to satisfy me in due course.

Sandra Gidley: I congratulate the hon. Member for Walthamstow on bringing the Bill to this stage. I fully support its aims and wish him every success with it. However, it needs to be as watertight as possible. The hon. Gentleman obviously appreciates
 that, as he has tabled amendments. The hon. Member for Daventry has got me thinking. I hope that he will not think me pedantic, but I have been trying to think of different scenarios and how they may or may not be covered by the Bill's provisions. One scenario concerned me slightly. I should like to share it with the Committee to see whether there is a problem, and if so, how we can get round it.
 Some local education authorities hire vehicles to transport young people to school or college. Presumably the Bill would cover those vehicles. Small private hire firms are often used. A driver can say no if he has an exemption certificate, but what would happen if another passenger who had an allergy to dogs was included in the contract? Would that be a basis for refusing the contract? I have only just thought of that point. It is a possible, if unlikely, scenario and it would be useful to cover it.

David Jamieson: May I say how pleased I am to be sitting under your careful and watchful eye, Mr. Cook? I am particularly pleased to be able to support my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow to ensure that his Bill can deliver its desired aims. It is a pleasure to be here not just with my hon. Friend but with other right hon. and hon. Friends who have long fought on disability issues.
 My right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) has a distinguished record in this area. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood and I shared an office many years ago. He had a private Member's Bill, which, alas, was unsuccessful, and I had one the following year, on an entirely different issue, which was successful, so I know how difficult it is to pilot private Member's legislation through the House. Again, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow on his work. My hon. Friends the Members for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen), for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), for Bristol, North-West (Dr. Naysmith) and for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts) have a keen interest in this subject, and, if I can spare his blushes, I know that the hon. Member for Daventry has followed these matters with interest for many years. 
 Much was said on Second Reading about the difference that assistance dogs can make to the lives of so many disabled people. Being unable to use local transport services with their dogs, a companion whom many describe as a lifeline, must create problems for many disabled people. One correspondent who wrote to the Department said: 
 ''Imagine how you would feel if you couldn't get a minicab when you needed one, particularly if you cannot drive a car. Imagine how it feels to be told you are not allowed into a club, restaurant, pub, theatre or a shop purely because you rely on a guide dog to help you around. These problems affect guide dog owners every day.'' 
Imagining is all that many of us can do, but for many disabled people it is a daily experience. I am delighted to see that this piece of legislation will help to plug a small but important gap in what people would see as discrimination.
 In some parts of the country the situation with private hire vehicles has changed in response to the campaigns orchestrated by the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association and the Royal National Institute for the Blind. Many local licensing authorities have already introduced their own requirements under existing legislation for drivers of private hire vehicles to carry assistance dogs, but unfortunately that has not given us the national coverage that we so much want. The Bill ensures that the provision is uniform throughout the country. Disabled people who use assistance dogs are uncertain about the policy when they move from one area to another. I am therefore particularly pleased to be associated with this Bill, which will tackle that aspect of discrimination against disabled people and give them the confidence to travel around the country. 
 The amendments in this group bring the Bill into line with private hire legislation, which, strange as it may seem to the man in the street, is significantly different from that applying to licensed taxis. The role of the operator is, perhaps, the most significant difference. With taxis, a hiring is made directly between a passenger and a driver, but with licensed private hire vehicles it is, of course, the operator who accepts the booking. It was therefore important to ensure that there would be duties relating to an operator to ensure that they did not turn down a booking purely on the grounds that an assistance dog would accompany the passenger, and the amendments address that particular concern. 
 My right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston asked about the important Scottish aspect of the Bill. He asked whether the Scots were 100 per cent. in favour of it, and I understand that they certainly were. There is a technicality here, which he probably understands better than I. I believe that the Sewel motion has not yet been approved by the Scottish Parliament. 
Mr. Clarke indicated assent.

David Jamieson: My right hon. Friend is nodding—no one else in the Committee is doing so—because he clearly understands the Sewel motion. Perhaps he will explain it to me, sometime. However, the Bill will be enacted in the Scottish Parliament.

Tom Clarke: My hon. Friend is explaining clearly exactly what is going on, and I am grateful to him for doing so. The Sewel motion relates to Lord Sewel, who, as a Minister at the Scottish Office, was involved in drawing up the Scotland Act 1998. In due course, he worked with the Scottish Executive. What my hon. Friend has said so far certainly pleases me, and I am delighted by the news that he has given me.

David Jamieson: I am glad that my news has been good news to my right hon. Friend. I am also glad that he has explained the Sewel motion to me and the rest of the Committee. It was indeed the intention that the
 Bill be enacted in Scotland as well. It would have created some disappointment in the House had that not been so.
 I know that both Government and Opposition Members and, in particular, disability organisations welcome the legislation. I therefore hope that the Committee will accept the amendments in order to deliver the benefits for disabled people that we all want.

Neil Gerrard: I thank my colleagues for their contributions. The hon. Member for Daventry raised a number of important points. We want to ensure that the Bill is right and that things work properly, and I understand his motives for raising those points.
 One difficulty is that we are dealing with a complex relationship. There is a passenger with a dog, an operator and a driver, and there are various forms of licensing involving operators, drivers and cars. It is a complex mixture to try to work through and it is difficult to find a phrase that will cover every single possible scenario that one might think of. 
 The hon. Gentleman raised the question of mixed motives. It would be difficult for a driver to make a false excuse. Once an operator had taken a booking and passed it to a driver by saying, ''Go to this address and pick this person up,'' and the driver had agreed, it would be a fairly flimsy excuse if the driver then told the passenger, ''I am not taking you'' and refused to carry a dog. It would not be difficult for a court to see through such an excuse if the matter were pursued. 
 The Bill is anti-discrimination legislation. We are saying that a driver or operator will be in trouble if they do not take from a person with a guide dog a booking that they would otherwise have taken. One can always envisage circumstances in any dispute or court case where establishing motives is not simple, but courts are used to taking such decisions. 
 In many cases, drivers do not have a contract of employment with operators. Certainly in London, which I am familiar with, many of the drivers are virtually self-employed. In some cases, if they have a contract with the operator, they pay the operator to provide them with work, which is a rather odd form of contract. When the driver is licensed, there is the possibility that, in addition to court action, the licensing authority may take a dim view of the driver not abiding by the conditions of the licence. In the case of exemption certificates, it is the driver who will have such a certificate, not the vehicle. 
 With regard to the information that a person should give when making a booking, it is difficult to see how one could in the legislation impose a duty to disclose on the person making the booking. One would have thought that it would be common sense for someone to do so when making a booking. If we pass the legislation, no doubt the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association and other organisations dealing with assistance dogs will want to tell their members that the legislation is in place and ensure that they are aware of it.

Hugo Swire: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for addressing those points. However, does he accept that, because many of the vehicles are privately owned cars, drivers should have some warning that they are going to pick up a dog? They could then make the necessary arrangements by putting down some protection for what may, when they clock off work, revert to their family car. I should also like the hon. Gentleman to address the question of compensation. I fully accept that the firm has no right to charge more for taking an animal, but what happens—as it must from time to time—if a dog soils, or in some way damages, the car? Is that something that could be addressed?

Neil Gerrard: I am sure that we could all be in that situation if we took a dog in a car, but it is difficult to see how one would deal with compensation.
 It would make sense, and associations would encourage their members to make it clear, for people to know when they are taking a booking that a dog is to be carried. There will also be a process of education, and drivers getting used to the idea of taking dogs. We should remember that that is already happening in a fair number of local authorities. We are not introducing provisions that are completely new, but bringing consistency throughout the country. I am not aware of any real problems that have arisen in the local authorities where the licensing requirement is already in place. Operators, drivers and passengers soon become familiar with the new regime.

Tim Boswell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has addressed the points made helpfully and in a good spirit. To respond, I would ask him to think about the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire). It may reassure the Committee if I say that in all my experience of guide dogs, including that of a right hon. Member in this House, the concerns that people have about their continence, or their ability to influence the environment, are nearly always ill placed. Of course, something can go wrong, but the dogs nearly always slot into situations with the least of problems. The legislation will allow us to prevent people from using the excuse of some theoretical inconvenience when there is no problem at all.

Neil Gerrard: That is very helpful. Every time that I have come across guide dogs they have been well behaved and gentle. A dog that is not reasonably well behaved would be unsuitable as a guide dog or assistance dog.
 There are bound to be problems, for example, with a person who has a single-car business and is covered by an exemption certificate. Someone may make a booking and have the unfortunate experience of such a driver turning up who cannot take the individual because of his exemption. That would be an inconvenience and a fresh booking would have to be made. However, the number of such occasions will be small; we know that exemption certificates that have been issued to licensed taxis are very few, and I do not expect huge numbers of exemption certificates to be issued in this case. I cannot remember the exact number, but we have something in the order of 6,000 
 assistance dogs of one sort or another. We also have about 150,000 private hire vehicles, so we will not be placing a huge burden on operators and drivers. 
 I understand the point about passengers and allergies. That is a difficult problem. Anyone with an allergy could get into a private vehicle after someone else had just been in it with a dog, or after someone had been in it wearing perfume; it would be terribly difficult to legislate against such possibilities. On the issue of local authority hire vehicles, local authorities that are hiring vehicles would in most cases have contracts with the companies from which they hire. It should be possible, through those contracts, for local authorities to think about the various possibilities and ensure that they do not create a difficulty where one should not exist. In most cases in which there are contracts with local authorities, the contract will be the mechanism through which problems are dealt with, rather than through legislation, which cannot cover every single possibility that we think of. 
 I have tried to address some of the concerns, and I shall reflect on the points that have been made. The amendment will work, but I shall reconsider some points because we do not want to produce something that does not work properly. 
 Amendment agreed to.

Neil Gerrard: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 21, leave out from 'to' to end of line 22 and insert
'issue a certificate of exemption to a driver in respect of subsection (3) it must do so.'.

Frank Cook: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 3, in page 2, line 1, after 'issue', insert 'a'.
 No. 4, in page 2, line 10, leave out from beginning to 'if' in line 11 and insert— 
 '( ) No offence is committed by a driver under subsection (3)'.
 Amendment No. 2 follows on from amendment No. 1 because in the original draft of the Bill, in which a duty was on the driver, the word ''person'' was used in relation to the exemption certificate being given on medical grounds. Clearly, the only person that might be concerned would be the driver. We now have references in clause 1 to both ''operator'' and ''driver'' so we must make it clear to whom precisely the exemption refers. The amendment clarifies that the driver and not the operator is eligible for an exemption certificate. 
 It would dignify amendment No. 3 to call it a technical amendment. A word was left out because of a drafting error—it is as simple as that. Amendment No. 4 just tidies up and makes it clear that a driver is not committing an offence if he has an exemption certificate by replacing the original phrase ''exempt from the duties.'' These are fairly small, technical and 
 tidying-up amendments to ensure that amendment No. 1, which we have already discussed, fits in with the rest of clause 1. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendments made: No. 3, in page 2, line 1, after 'issue', insert 'a'. 
 No. 4, in page 2, line 10, leave out from beginning to 'if' in line 11 and insert— 
 '( ) No offence is committed by a driver under subsection (3)'.—[Mr. Gerrard.]

Neil Gerrard: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 17, leave out from beginning to end of line 20.

Frank Cook: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 6, in page 2, line 22, leave out from beginning to 'which' in line 24 and insert
'—
(a) has been trained to guide a blind person;
(b) has been trained to assist a deaf person;
(c) has been trained by a prescribed charity to assist a disabled person who has a disability'
 No. 7, in page 2, line 28, leave out from 'objects' to end of line 33. 
 No. 8, in page 2, line 33, at end insert 
''driver'' means a person who holds a licence granted under— 
 (a) section 13 of the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 (c. 34) (''the 1998 Act'');
(b) section 51 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (c. 57) (''the 1976 Act''); or
(c) an equivalent provision of a local enactment; 
 ''licensing authority'', in relation to any area of England and Wales, means the authority responsible for licensing private hire vehicles in that area; 
 ''operator'' means a person who holds a licence granted under— 
 (a) section 3 of the 1998 Act; 
 (b) section 55 of the 1976 Act; or 
 (c) an equivalent provision of a local enactment; 
 ''private hire vehicle'' means a vehicle licensed under— 
 (a) section 6 of the 1998 Act; 
 (b) section 48 of the 1976 Act; or 
 (c) an equivalent provision of a local enactment.'.

Neil Gerrard: The amendments deal with definitions. The Bill includes definitions for guide dog, hearing dog and assistance dog. These tidying-up amendments define them all as ''assistance dog.'' The definition includes guide dogs and hearing dogs but also other working dogs. That is quite important, although it covers a relatively small numbers of dogs. There are several other categories of working dogs and they would all be swept up in the definition of assistance dog.
 One of the amendments deletes the reference in the Bill to the yellow jacket. There are two reasons for doing that. First, not all assistance dogs wear yellow jackets. Many do—probably the majority—but certain assistance dogs wear red rather than yellow, and some owners of assistance dogs tend not to put a jacket but perhaps just a coloured harness on the dog. 
 Secondly, private hire vehicles are often booked by telephone. It does not make sense to have a clause in the Bill that says that the dog must be wearing a yellow 
 jacket when one hires a vehicle. How the operator would be able to distinguish over the phone whether a dog is wearing a yellow jacket is difficult to envisage. I know that videophones are on the way, but they are not here yet and they may not be universally used. Therefore, it makes sense to take out the reference to a yellow jacket so that we do not unintentionally introduce a nonsense. Amendment No. 6 uses the term ''prescribed charity'' rather than ''specified charity'' and brings the paragraph into line with the terms in the rest of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. 
 Amendment No. 8 is another technical amendment and contains a series of definitions of phrases such as ''driver'', ''licensing authority'' and ''operator''. I was rather surprised about some of the provisions, including the references to three pieces of legislation: ''the 1998 Act'', ''the 1976 Act'' and 
''an equivalent provision of a local enactment''. 
Those are necessary to cover London and the rest of the country, while the 
''equivalent provision of a local enactment'' 
refers only to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Minister. There is apparently some local enactment for Plymouth that must be included so that the definitions can apply throughout the country. 
 The amendments are mainly technical. We must remove the yellow jacket reference and ensure that the definition of assistance dog covers all the categories of dog that might be involved.

Tim Boswell: I start with a general and positive point. Dogs for the Disabled is an admirable charity and is located by a whisker in my constituency. I thoroughly enjoy visiting the people there and seeing how they train dogs to do remarkable things for disabled people. There is no suggestion from the Opposition of any covert, let alone overt, opposition to the intentions of the hon. Gentleman or his Bill. His amendments are well placed, but in the spirit of my earlier remarks I want some further assurances.
 Although it should perhaps be incumbent on me to know the Disability Discrimination Act, I confess that I have not checked it cover to cover. After all, there is a limit to the extent to which one can check multiple cross-references, unless one is a draftsperson, to check that it has been conceived correctly. Will the hon. Gentleman assure me that the substance of the regime for private hire vehicles covered by the legislation will be the same as that for taxis? 
Mr. Gerrard indicated assent.

Tim Boswell: The hon. Gentleman nods, which is helpful. Having said that, and in the knowledge that I do not have the text in front of me, I shall ask him a couple of specific points about the drafting of the amendments. He referred to a ''prescribed charity'', and I presume the DDA specifies the charities that that covers and that the Secretary of State may make an order to prescribe them as such. I am not a lawyer, but there is always the potential that a list that specifies one type may be held to exclude another. There is a slight
 difficulty in singling out assistance dogs for blind people, those for deaf people and other assistance dogs, as a dog may have an obligation to cover the multiple disabilities of an individual who, for example, was blind and had locomotive disabilities. No one wants to see a situation in which a dog that qualifies to do two jobs is somehow disqualified under the arrangements by a legal accident.
 I do not want to make a meal of this for the Committee, as these are matters on which the hon. Gentleman and his advisers may want to reflect, but my final point concerns amendment No. 6, which relates to dogs that are trained to guide blind persons. They are what most people would think of typically as ''guide dogs''. 
 Paragraph (b) refers to the special category of assistance to deaf people and paragraph (c), the third category, to general assistance. A slightly different standard of approval of what is being done is required in the different cases. For example, it is not clear from the proposal whether the blind person referred to is a registered blind person. There are more people who are visually impaired than there are those who have no sight at all. The definition of a deaf person, and the appropriate amount of training, are also not clear from the provision. 
 The third category, training by a prescribed charity, does not define the amount of training or the nature of the assistance given, but it appears to impose a slightly different sort of test. For example, it is not clear why, given the role of the Royal National Institute for the Blind in respect of visual impairment or of the Royal National Institute for Deaf People in respect of hearing loss, they could not all be swept up within the single category of prescribed charities, which would make it simpler. 
 My point of substance is that, whenever categories are broken down and different ones proposed, it may involve two separate interests or two slightly different methods of handling a situation, and that may have unfortunate legal consequences, which we neither seek nor fully anticipate. However, the amendment is more straightforward than the clause and is therefore a welcome simplification. Assuming that it is accepted, I shall be happy to consider it again on Report. 
 In the spirit of my earlier remarks, I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on whether the amendment really optimises the proposal and to ensure that nothing has been overlooked which would help to make its implementation clearer and better.

Neil Gerrard: I take the hon. Gentleman's point; we do not want to leave loopholes in the Bill. The meaning of ''prescribed'' is as in the Disability Discrimination Act. The Secretary of State has the power, through statutory instruments, to define the organisations covered. I do not want the Bill to include a list that would have to be amended in primary legislation, if for example, new organisations were to be included.
 Dual-purpose dogs should not be a problem provided that they come within one of the categories. It would make no difference if they fell within two of the categories.
 With the amendments, the section will still include references to the disabled person having a disability that consists of epilepsy or otherwise affects his mobility or manual dexterity. Those phrases will remain in the measure, which is pretty much a catch-all one. I understand what the hon. Gentleman said about definitions and creating loopholes, but I do not think that there are any in the proposal. However, before Report I will ensure that the Bill contains no unnecessary loopholes. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendments made: No. 6, in page 2, line 22, leave out from beginning to 'which' in line 24 and insert 
'— 
 (a) has been trained to guide a blind person; 
 (b) has been trained to assist a deaf person; 
 (c) has been trained by a prescribed charity to assist a disabled person who has a disability'
 No. 7, in page 2, line 28, leave out from 'objects' to end of line 33. 
 No. 8, in page 2, line 33, at end insert 
''driver'' means a person who holds a licence granted under— 
 (a) section 13 of the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 (c. 34) (''the 1998 Act'');
(b) section 51 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (c. 57) (''the 1976 Act''); or
(c) an equivalent provision of a local enactment; 
 ''licensing authority'', in relation to any area of England and Wales, means the authority responsible for licensing private hire vehicles in that area; 
 ''operator'' means a person who holds a licence granted under— 
 (a) section 3 of the 1998 Act; 
 (b) section 55 of the 1976 Act; or 
 (c) an equivalent provision of a local enactment; 
 ''private hire vehicle'' means a vehicle licensed under— 
 (a) section 6 of the 1998 Act; 
 (b) section 48 of the 1976 Act; or 
 (c) an equivalent provision of a local enactment.'.—[Mr. Gerrard.]
 Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 - Forgery and false statements

Neil Gerrard: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 2, line 39, leave out from '(1)(a)' to the end and insert
', for ''section 36 or 37'' there is substituted ''section 36, 37 or 37A''.'.

Frank Cook: With this we may take the following amendments: No. 10, in page 2, line 40, leave out from '(1)(b)' to the end and insert
', for ''section 36(9)(b) or (37)(8)(b)'' there is substituted ''section 36(9)(b), 37(8)(b) or 37A(8)(b)''.'.
 No. 11, in clause 4, page 2, line 42, leave out '67' and insert '68'. 
 No. 12, in clause 4, page 2, line 43, leave out from 'authority''' to end of line 7 on page 3 and insert
', after ''authority'' there is inserted '', except in section 37A,''.'.

Neil Gerrard: Briefly, these are purely technical amendments to ensure that the correct references to appropriate sections appear in the Act. It applies to the original sections 36 and 37 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and to clause 1 of the Bill, which will become section 37A of the Act.
 Amendment No. 11 simply corrects a drafting error: the reference to section 67 of the 1995 Act should have been to section 68. Amendment No. 12 brings in the correct reference to the new section 37A, which will be created by clause 1. As I said, they are purely technical amendments. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendment made: No. 10, in page 2, line 40, leave out from '(1)(b)' to the end and insert 
', for ''section 36(9)(b) or (37)(8)(b)'' there is substituted ''section 36(9)(b), 37(8)(b) or 37A(8)(b)''.'.—[Mr. Gerrard.]
 Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 - Interpretation

Amendments made: No. 11, in page 2, line 42, leave out '67' and insert '68'. 
 No. 12, in page 2, line 43, leave out from 'authority''' to end of line 7 on page 3 and insert 
', after ''authority'' there is inserted '', except in section 37A,''.'.—[Mr. Gerrard.]
 Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 - Expenses

Frank Cook: I now remind members of the Committee of my advice at the opening of the sitting.
 Clause 5 disagreed to.

Clause 6 - Short title, commencement and extent

Neil Gerrard: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 3, line 14, leave out from 'Act' to end of line 18 and insert
'(apart from this section) comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State or, in relation to section (Carrying of guide dogs, hearing dogs and other assistance dogs: Scotland) the Scottish Ministers, may by order made by statutory instrument appoint.
 (3) Different days may be appointed for different purposes and different areas.'.

Frank Cook: With this we may take amendment No. 15, in page 3, line 19, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
 '(4) Any amendment by this Act of an enactment has the same extent as the enactment amended.'.

Neil Gerrard: The final group of amendments deal with commencement. I refer particularly to the reference in amendment No. 14 to
 ''Different days may be appointed for different purposes and different areas.'' 
London is behind the rest of the country. [Interruption.] I wish that my hon. Friends would not read more into that remark than I intended. It related purely to the legislation. The rest of the country already has licensing regimes through local authorities. We do not have them in London, but Transport for London is progressing matters. We have got to the point where operators are licensed, and hopefully drivers will be licensed by the end of the year. That is out of our hands, and depends on Transport for London. We do not want the rest of the country to have to wait until the legislation is brought into force merely because there is a delay in getting the licensing provisions in place for London. Licensing for London is a large exercise. It is not being carried out borough by borough, or local authority by local authority, but for the whole of London through the Public Carriage Office. We will get there, but the provision allows us to ensure that the legislation can be enforced as soon as possible in other parts of the country. We can apply the legislation to London once we have the licensing provisions. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendment made: No. 15, in page 3, line 19, leave out subsection (4) and insert— 
 '(4) Any amendment by this Act of an enactment has the same extent as the enactment amended.'—[Mr. Gerrard.]
 Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Neil Gerrard: This is the last clause that we will consider, and I want to reiterate my thanks to hon. Members who have given up their time to help the Committee, and for the constructive way in which the Bill was considered. I thank the Minister and his officials who worked so helpfully through the amendments that were necessary to produce a Bill that will work. I also thank the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association and the RNIB. The Bill was produced through my contacts with them, and they have been of great support and assistance to me throughout my attempt to get the Bill to this stage. I hope that it will reach Report and will soon be on the statute book.

David Jamieson: I offer my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow on the way in which he has handled the Bill, which has been exemplary. I know how difficult private Members' legislation is. It follows a precarious and difficult route through the House, and my hon. Friend has done extremely well to have got this far.
 I am delighted to have been associated with the Bill. I was not the Minister who originally had charge of it, but there have been unforeseen rearrangements in the Department over the past fortnight, and happy circumstances meant that I could be associated with it. I, too, thank the officials who have given excellent advice throughout the Bill's consideration. We wish it safe passage through its later stages in the House.

Tim Boswell: It would be churlish if Opposition Members made no comment. I simply want to reiterate the thanks and praises that have been lavished on the hon. Member for Walthamstow for what by all accounts has been a common and worthwhile endeavour, and the thanks for all the support that he has received. Support often has to be earned, and he has gone to great pains to liaise with people to try to get the legislation right. I welcome the Committee's emphasis on ensuring that the legislation is not merely right in theory, but works in practice. We are nearly there, and I do not anticipate any further difficulties. This morning's discussion will have helped to eliminate any remaining difficulties or concerns.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1 - Carrying of guide dogs, hearing dogs and other assistance dogs: scotland

'In section 20 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (c. 45) (regulations relating to taxis and private hire cars and their drivers) the following subsection is inserted after subsection (2A)— 
 ''(2AA) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations make such provision as appears to them to be necessary or expedient in relation to the carrying in private hire cars of disabled persons (within the meaning of section 1 (2) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (c. 50)) and such provision may in particular prescribe— 
 (a) requirements as to the carriage of guide dogs, hearing dogs and other categories of dogs; 
 (b) a date from which any such provision is to apply and the extent to which it is to apply; and 
 (c) the circumstances in which an exemption from such provision may be granted in respect of any private hire car or private hire car driver, 
 and in this subsection ''guide dog'', ''hearing dog'' and ''other categories of dog'' have the same meaning as in subsection (2A) above. 
 (2AB) Regulations under subsection (2AA) above shall be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the Scottish Parliament.''.'.—[Mr. Gerrard.] 
 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. 
 Bill, as amended, to be reported. 
Committee rose at twenty minutes to Twelve o'clock.
 Gidley, Sandra  Jamieson, Mr.  Mahon, Mrs.  Naysmith, Dr.  Swire, Mr.  Watts, Mr.